StPaulHusker Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Pawlenty was Governor beginning in 2003, long before the Recession. How'd he do in comparison? I moved to Minnesota in 2004 and I think there were budget deficits almost every year he was governor. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Here is a flip side of the Kansas tax experiment with regards to Minnesota. I wish Carlfense was still around to comment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html I am in no way shape or form disagreeing with his tax increase on the rich or raising the minimum wage. However, look at the years being discussed. The governor before him, was there during the worst national recession in a very very very long time. He then took over as governor in 2011 when the national economy started improving. If you look at job creation nationally, I'm pretty sure you are going to see very similar growth rates during those years. So, I have a hard time with someone claiming his policies are what has miraculously changed everything in Minnesota. Heck....the increase in minimum wage hasn't even taken affect yet. My point for posting this wasn't the comparison between Pawlenty and Dayton. It was Dayton and Brownback. And the years they implemented their plans were similar with very different results. I understand why you did it. However, the article goes into great detail about what I said. Well sure. It was a comparison piece about the last 2 MN governors. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Well sure. It was a comparison piece about the last 2 MN governors. And I'm saying the conclusions the author is drawing that the new governor is SOOOO much more successful because he raised taxes on the rich and raised minimum wage is pretty difficult to swallow when you look at the entire picture. Link to comment
QMany Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 And I'm saying the conclusions the author is drawing that the new governor is SOOOO much more successful because he raised taxes on the rich and raised minimum wage is pretty difficult to swallow when you look at the entire picture. What is the "entire picture?" How was Pawlenty doing in the 5 years before the Recession? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 And I'm saying the conclusions the author is drawing that the new governor is SOOOO much more successful because he raised taxes on the rich and raised minimum wage is pretty difficult to swallow when you look at the entire picture. What is the "entire picture?" How was Pawlenty doing in the 5 years before the Recession? I have no idea...I wasn't living there. This seems to be the main part of what he is being compared to. When he took office in January of 2011, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton inherited a $6.2 billion budget deficit and a 7 percent unemployment rate from his predecessor, OK...He came into office in 2011 when the entire country had just come through a major recession that started around 2007. The entire country lost a huge number of jobs and due to lack of commerce (that is taxed) and more people without jobs and no income (that can be taxed) many parts of government had budget issues. I'm actually surprised the previous governor had a positive job creation for his entire term simply due to the recession and the timing of when he left office. Now, the new governor comes in and does these two things. He raises taxes on the rich and passes a bill to increase minimum wage. Notice I said "passes a bill". The minimum wage hasn't even been in affect yet. I'm not even sure if the tax increase is in affect yet. Meanwhile, around the time the new governor takes office, nationally, the economy has started coming back. Unemployment has dropped and tax revenues in general (I believe) are up. So....this author then turns around and is making this huge deal about these new policies and how it has all of a sudden lowered the unemployment and improved the state's economy. Policies take time to implement and have their affects recognized. It's a far stretch for me to believe that these two policies are the main reason why the state is in the condition it's in when viewing what has happened nationally at the same time. Link to comment
strigori Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Look at the parts of the article where they are compared to other states, Wisconsin in particular. Minnesota is pathing better than states with Conservative Govs. There is a lot of evidence that the economy does better when the policies in place are higher taxes on the wealthy and more money to the masses. Both are simply backing up Econ 101. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Look at the parts of the article where they are compared to other states, Wisconsin in particular. Minnesota is pathing better than states with Conservative Govs. There is a lot of evidence that the economy does better when the policies in place are higher taxes on the wealthy and more money to the masses. Both are simply backing up Econ 101. How is there more money for the masses right now in Minnesota? The minimum wage hike hasn't happened yet. Link to comment
strigori Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Separate but related thoughts. Hence the 'both' Second sentence was overarching theory. Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Look at the parts of the article where they are compared to other states, Wisconsin in particular. Minnesota is pathing better than states with Conservative Govs. There is a lot of evidence that the economy does better when the policies in place are higher taxes on the wealthy and more money to the masses. Both are simply backing up Econ 101. How is there more money for the masses right now in Minnesota? The minimum wage hike hasn't happened yet. More money for the state government results in more government hiring and more government contracts for infrastructure, for one thing. Those in turn result in more jobs which means more people with the ability to spend. That, in turns, drives business to add jobs or otherwise expand capacity. So, the reversal of the budget deficit alone would have a substantial positive gain to the masses through an actual ripple effect (unlike "trickle down" theory, which actually produces the opposite results). Also, to whatever degree the national economic improvement has contributed to Minnesota's vast improvement, it should also accrue to all states, and to the same degree all things being equal. It hasn't. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 That's fantastic....but.....wait. According to this website and chart spending in the state of Minnesota hasn't increased. LINK Sorry, it won't let me post a chart from this web site so you will need to go there to view it. So, you have a budget that hasn't increased spending to get more money to the masses and you have an increase in minimum wage that hasn't taken affect yet. Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 The total spend for 2011 was $55.67 billion. In 2012, it increased to $56.75 billion. That's an increase of $1.12 billion dollars. So, yes. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 That is a 2% increase. From 2001 to 2011 their budget grew by 22.5% That's an average of 2.25%. Neither is keeping up with inflation and the increase you mentioned isn't a big difference from what had happened during Pawlenty's term. LINK In fact, the only time spending decreased according to this article is in Pawlenty's final term. He reduced the amount of growth for which that seems to be carried on through to the years where you state there was a 2% increase. Link to comment
QMany Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 From 2001 to 2011 their budget grew by 22.5% That's an average of 2.25%. Is that how compound interest works? Link to comment
QMany Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I'm failing to follow what you are arguing, BRB. Against tax increases on the wealthy? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 From my very first post in this thread. I am in no way shape or form disagreeing with his tax increase on the rich or raising the minimum wage. I have a real problem when either side takes something and they brag about how their policies caused some great thing to happen. I'm simply digging into what the article claims as taxing the rich and raising minimum wage in Minnesota all of a sudden created this great economy. To me, it appears that the minimum wage hasn't taken affect so I fail to see how that changed anything. I can see how raising taxes and increasing revenue can increase what the state can spend and that can help the economy (although I'm told that can be done with debt with no bad problems) . However, it doesn't appear that the state has all of a sudden drastically increased spending to pump money into the economy. So, it appears to me that this author is trying to pin all these great things that are happening in Minnesota on these two amazing policies that the new governor put in place and I'm just not seeing how they could have possible affected the economy at this point in time. I'm simply asking questions and not taking what appears to me to be a politically motivated piece of "journalism" at face value. Link to comment
Recommended Posts